Enable or pause a Google Ads campaign

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the functional effect that it can turn spend on, which is a behavioral consequence beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, but the added value is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and then adds a distinctive differentiator. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool that controls campaign spend, the description lacks important context. It does not mention that enabling a campaign will start incurring costs, that pausing stops spend, or any prerequisite like customer_id requirements. It also doesn't mention error handling or verification. The tool is simple but financially impactful, and the description is too thin.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it provides no information about campaign_id, status, or customer_id. The schema itself defines an enum for status and types, but the description adds nothing. For a tool with 0% coverage, this is a significant failure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Enable or pause a campaign.' It specifies the resource (campaign) and the verb (enable/pause). It also differentiates from siblings by claiming 'The only tool that can turn spend on,' which sets it apart from other Google Ads tools that manage campaigns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: it is for enabling or pausing campaigns, and the unique capability to turn spend on implies this is the go-to tool for that action. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the exclusivity claim provides strong guidance. This is a clear context with no explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.